Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
🧠 Tenured brain, fresh daily takes. Maximum citations but sanity questionable. The prof your prof follows for daily research & AI takes. Quality wins. University Research Chair & Tenured Full Professor.
BLACK FRIDAY SALES ➜ https://store.lennartnacke.com/
BLACK FRIDAY SALES ➜ https://store.lennartnacke.com/
Pinned
Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
· Dec 6
Mini Masterclass: How to Write a CHI Paper
Join Professor Dr. Lennart Nacke for a FREE 30-minute masterclass about How to Write a CHI Paper. Become a smarter research author and master the basics of w...
www.youtube.com
The masterclass is this Saturday, Dec 7 at 11 AM Eastern.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Extension papers ship fastest.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
January 17, 2026 at 7:03 AM
Extension papers ship fastest.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
3 routines that doubled my research output:
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
January 17, 2026 at 1:00 AM
3 routines that doubled my research output:
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
5 steps to developing a point of view:
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
January 16, 2026 at 6:59 PM
5 steps to developing a point of view:
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
Your paper exists for one of three reasons:
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
January 16, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Your paper exists for one of three reasons:
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
Train students to become inquisitive explorers.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
January 16, 2026 at 12:57 PM
Train students to become inquisitive explorers.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
The best part about Major Revisions?
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
January 16, 2026 at 6:58 AM
The best part about Major Revisions?
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
PhD students who organize lit reviews by author waste months.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
January 16, 2026 at 1:03 AM
PhD students who organize lit reviews by author waste months.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
Academia's dirty secret:
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
January 15, 2026 at 6:57 PM
Academia's dirty secret:
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
Most academics design their writing schedules backwards.
They wait for the perfect day. Clear calendar. Empty inbox. Sharp mind.
That day never comes.
Here's how to build a system that works without perfect conditions:
x.com/acagamic/st...
They wait for the perfect day. Clear calendar. Empty inbox. Sharp mind.
That day never comes.
Here's how to build a system that works without perfect conditions:
x.com/acagamic/st...
January 15, 2026 at 1:12 PM
Most academics design their writing schedules backwards.
They wait for the perfect day. Clear calendar. Empty inbox. Sharp mind.
That day never comes.
Here's how to build a system that works without perfect conditions:
x.com/acagamic/st...
They wait for the perfect day. Clear calendar. Empty inbox. Sharp mind.
That day never comes.
Here's how to build a system that works without perfect conditions:
x.com/acagamic/st...
What I thought would make me a productive writer:
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
January 15, 2026 at 1:12 PM
What I thought would make me a productive writer:
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
5 reasons most papers get desk rejected:
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
January 15, 2026 at 7:03 AM
5 reasons most papers get desk rejected:
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
Your sacrifice stays hidden.
January 15, 2026 at 6:02 AM
Your sacrifice stays hidden.
Your dean praises your lab's publication record.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
January 15, 2026 at 6:02 AM
Your dean praises your lab's publication record.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
These skills matter more than your thesis topic ever will.
January 15, 2026 at 12:58 AM
These skills matter more than your thesis topic ever will.
The PhD is a resilience bootcamp under cover as an academic degree.
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
January 15, 2026 at 12:58 AM
The PhD is a resilience bootcamp under cover as an academic degree.
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
Grant reviewers fund different entry points differently.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
January 14, 2026 at 7:02 PM
Grant reviewers fund different entry points differently.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
3 lessons from 300+ paper submissions:
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
January 14, 2026 at 4:03 PM
3 lessons from 300+ paper submissions:
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
Your rejection rate drops when you write consistently.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
January 14, 2026 at 7:04 AM
Your rejection rate drops when you write consistently.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
5 benefits of using AI in academic writing:
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
January 14, 2026 at 3:56 AM
5 benefits of using AI in academic writing:
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
Subscribe for frameworks that help you navigate the system: go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter
Research Freedom. Run a smarter research lab in 7 minutes a week.
Get one short email each week on how to turn your lab, clinic, or research team into a publishing and funding machine – using simple systems, ethical AI workflows, and better delegation.
go.lennartnacke.com
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
Subscribe for frameworks that help you navigate the system: go.lennartnacke.com/newsletter
If you got rejected, apply again next cycle.
Different PI, different timing, different grant phase.
The PhD you don't get might save you from 5 years of misalignment.
Reply with 👍 if rejection redirected you to a better fit.
I write about academic survival tactics every week.
Different PI, different timing, different grant phase.
The PhD you don't get might save you from 5 years of misalignment.
Reply with 👍 if rejection redirected you to a better fit.
I write about academic survival tactics every week.
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
If you got rejected, apply again next cycle.
Different PI, different timing, different grant phase.
The PhD you don't get might save you from 5 years of misalignment.
Reply with 👍 if rejection redirected you to a better fit.
I write about academic survival tactics every week.
Different PI, different timing, different grant phase.
The PhD you don't get might save you from 5 years of misalignment.
Reply with 👍 if rejection redirected you to a better fit.
I write about academic survival tactics every week.
That's all.
It never was about your potential.
It never was about your potential.
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
That's all.
It never was about your potential.
It never was about your potential.
What separates accepted from rejected:
1. Alignment with active research projects
2. Demonstration of relevant methods experience
3. Clear articulation of why THIS lab
4. Evidence of ability to finish
Notice what's missing?
Your worth as a researcher.
Rejection measures fit.
1. Alignment with active research projects
2. Demonstration of relevant methods experience
3. Clear articulation of why THIS lab
4. Evidence of ability to finish
Notice what's missing?
Your worth as a researcher.
Rejection measures fit.
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
What separates accepted from rejected:
1. Alignment with active research projects
2. Demonstration of relevant methods experience
3. Clear articulation of why THIS lab
4. Evidence of ability to finish
Notice what's missing?
Your worth as a researcher.
Rejection measures fit.
1. Alignment with active research projects
2. Demonstration of relevant methods experience
3. Clear articulation of why THIS lab
4. Evidence of ability to finish
Notice what's missing?
Your worth as a researcher.
Rejection measures fit.
I've rejected applicants with perfect scores because their interests didn't match my lab's trajectory.
Not because they couldn't do the work.
Because I couldn't supervise them properly while delivering on existing commitments.
That's the brutal economics of PhD admissions.
Sorry.
Not because they couldn't do the work.
Because I couldn't supervise them properly while delivering on existing commitments.
That's the brutal economics of PhD admissions.
Sorry.
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
I've rejected applicants with perfect scores because their interests didn't match my lab's trajectory.
Not because they couldn't do the work.
Because I couldn't supervise them properly while delivering on existing commitments.
That's the brutal economics of PhD admissions.
Sorry.
Not because they couldn't do the work.
Because I couldn't supervise them properly while delivering on existing commitments.
That's the brutal economics of PhD admissions.
Sorry.
Because funding is already allocated.
Because supervision time is finite.
Because supervision time is finite.
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
Because funding is already allocated.
Because supervision time is finite.
Because supervision time is finite.